Chennai Court August 1949 Judgments
A.S. Govindan Vs. Mrs. Margaret Jayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad153
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. On 7th September 1948 an ex parte order for maintenance was passed against the petitioner. He filed an application on 4th January 1949 to set aside that order and also contested the quantum of maintenance. Under the proviso to clause 6 of Section 488, Criminal P. C., an ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date of the order. This application, which was filed on 4th January 1949, is undoubtedly more than three months from the date of the order. But it is contended by the learned counsel that the period of three months means three months from the date of the knowledge of the order. In short ho wants the word 'knowledge' to be introduced which is not there. I do not see any reason why section should be read with the word 'knowledge' which is not there. If the intention of the Legislature was that it should be three months from the date of the knowledge of the order it would have said so. I, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaraju Naidu Vs. D.J. Keymer and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad230
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Yahya Ali J. imposing a condition before permitting the appellant to defend the suit brought against him by the respondents.2. The principal contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that it was not open to the learned Judge to go into the merits of the defence and to judge the material placed before him to arrive at a conclusion whether or not there was any truth in the case put forward by the defendant. According to this argument, the learned Judge should confine himself to the pleadings. If in the written statement a case is put forward which, if proved, would be a successful answer to the plaint claim, then leave should be granted unconditionally. In support of this argument the learned advocate for the appellant relies on the decision in the House of Lords in Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co, (1902) 85 L. T. 260 : 50 W. R. 49, a decision of Beasley C. J. and King J. in Sundaram Chettyiar v. Valliammal, 58 Mad. 116 :...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaraju Naidu Vs. D.J. Keymer and Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ591
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Yahya Ali, J., imposing a condition before permitting the appellant to defend the suit brought against him by the respondents.2. The principal contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that it was not open to the learned Judge to go into the merits of the defence and to judge the material placed before him to arrive at a conclusion whether or not there was any truth in the case put forward by the defendant. According to this argument the learned Judge should confine himself to the pleadings. If, in the written state' ment, a case is put forward which, if proved, would be a successful answer to the plaint claim, then leave should be granted unconditionally, In support of the argument the learned advocate for the appellant relies on the decision in the Housis of Lords in Jacobs v. Booths Distillery Co. 85 L.T. 362, a decision of Beasley, C.J., and King, J.e in Sundaram Chetly v. Valliammal I.L.R.(1934)Mad. 116, and a rece...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Yenumula Suryanarayanamurthy Dora Garu Vs. Sri Chitrapu Buch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ774
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the order of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry appointing the appellant herein guardian of his minor brother and directing the delivery of possession of the family properties to him on certain conditions imposed upon by the learned District Judge. The order was that it was only on the fulfilment of those conditions by the petitioner that he is entitled to recover possession of the properties, or to act as the guardian of his minor brother. The learned Judge held that as the elder brother has furnished security as ordered, he was to be appointed as guardian of the property of the minor on usual conditions. O. P. No. 92 of 1935 was an application for the appointment of a property guardian for the petitioner and his minor brother on the ground that both of them were minors and that a guardian should be appointed, because the joint family consisted only of these two minors and there was no...
Tag this Judgment!Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappen Nayanar Karnavan of Kullon Vengayil Tarwad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad215
Horwill, J.1. In this application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of this Court dismissing as not maintainable an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry removing the petitioner from receivership and appointing two others, it has been argued that the petitioner has the right to appeal either under Section 109(a) or Section 109(c), Civil P. C.2. As for the first contention that the order passed by us was a final order, it is sufficient to state that a final order is contemplated under Section 109(a) must be one which affects finally the rights of parties. An order removing or appointing a receiver does not affect at all the rights of the parties ; it is merely an order making provision for the due preservation of the estate during the pendency of the suit. This is such a well-recognised principle of law that authority for this proposition should hardly be necessary. We, therefore, content ourselves with referring to Rajnithi v. Nrising...
Tag this Judgment!Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappen Nayanar of Kullon Vengayil Tarwad Vs. Kutoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ601
Horwill, J.1. In this application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of this Court : (1949)2MLJ599 dismissing as not maintainable an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry removing the petitioner from receivership and appointing two others, it has been argued that the petitioner has the right to appeal either under Section 109(a) or Section 109(c), Civil Procedure Code.2. As for the first contention that the order passed by us was a final order, it is sufficient to state that a final order contemplated under Section 109 (a) must be one which affects finally the rights of parties. An order removing or appointing a receiver does not affect at all the rights of the parties; it is merely an order making provision for the due preservation of the estate during the pendency of the suit. This is such a well-recognised principle of law that authority for this proposition should hardly be necessary. We therefore content ourselves with referring t...
Tag this Judgment!The Kandan Textile Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal (1) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad616; (1949)NULLLLJ875Mad
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application is made by the Kandan Textiles Ltd., for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in the matter of the industrial dispute between the workers and the management of the Kandan Textiles Ltd., before the Industrial Tribunal 1, Madras and the award therein dated 23-5-1949 and to quash the same.2. The applicant company is the proprietor of a small weaving mill located in Tiruvottiyur, Madras, employing 60 looms and about 200 workers. On 21-1-1948, one R.M. Sundaram, one of the workmen in the mill was dismissed by the management on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of a flexible shaft. He made attempts through the Labour Conciliation Officer to get himself reinstated but did not succeed in his attempt. On 23-8-1948 the boiler in the mills broke down and the mills were closed from 24-8-1948 till 11-10-1948. On the intervention of the Labour Authorities, 14 days' wages were paid to practically all the workers. On 12-10-1948 the...
Tag this Judgment!Kutteer Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar, Karnavan of Kutteer Vengayil Tarw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad212
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was appointed a receiver in O. S. No. 28 of 1945. Upon a petition by some of the parties to the suit, who made certain allegations of maladministration, the appellant was removed from his receivership by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry and two others were appointed in his stead. A preliminary point argued in the appeal is whether the appeal is maintainable.2. We have no doubt that the law in most High Courts, including this High Court, is that no appeal lies against an order removing a receiver. The matter came up directly for decision in C. M. A. No. 278 of 1914 before a Bench of this Court; and it was held that in the absence of any special provision in the Code for an appeal against an order removing a receiver, no appeal would lie. The learned Judges purported to follow Ramaswami Naidu v. Ayyalu Naidu, : (1924)46MLJ196 , although the question that came up for decision in that appeal was whether any appeal lay against an order refusing to remove a re...
Tag this Judgment!Nari Chinnabba Chetty Vs. E. Chengalroya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad237
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, North Arcot, in A. S. No. 244 of 1946. The facts were briefly these. The appellants here had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 124 of 1942 against the respondents preventing the respondents from interfering with the appellants' right of way along the pathway marked KLM in the suit plan, so that appellants might take their cattle and ploughing materials along that pathway. These appellants put in E. A. No. 496 of 1946 in the District Munsif's Court, Vellore, the Court which had granted the decree, alleging that the respondents had ploughed up a portion of the pathway and included it in their adjacent land, had dug a pit on the pathway, and widened the existing well making an encroachment on the pathway, and thus made it impossible for any cattle to go along the pathway with safety, and for any persons to go along the pathway without care. The learned District Munsif gave these appellants a...
Tag this Judgment!Kuteer Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar, Karnavan of Kuteer Vengayil Tarwad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ599
Harwill, J.1. The appellant was appointed a receiver in O.S. No. 28 of 1945. Upon a petition by some of the parties to the suit, who made certain allegation of maladministration, the appellant was removed from his receivership by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry and two others were appointed in his stead. A preliminary point argued in the appeal is whether the appeal is maintainable.2. We have no doubt that the law in most High Courts, including this High Court, is that no appeal lies against an order removing a receiver. The matter came up directly for decision in C.M.A. No. 278 of 1944 before a Bench of this Court; and it was held that in the absence of any special provision in the Code for an appeal against an order removing a receiver, no appeal would lie. The learned judges purported to follow Ramaswami Naidu v. Ayyalu Naidu (1923) 46 M.L.J. 196, although the question that came up for decision in that appeal was whether any appeal lay against an order refusing to remove a rece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »